Best seed/worst seed

[Smails]

How big could it swing if we win the BET versus losing to Butler? A lot of external influences are still to be played out, but could we be anywhere from a 10 to a 6?

Thoughts?

Lose to butler- 10/9

Lose in the semis- 8/7

Lose in the finals- 7/6

Win the tourney- 6

[XMuskieFTW]

I agree, although I don't see us getting a 9 if we los to Butler and finish 19-13. 10 is most likely or maybe even an 11. I agree with the rest of those seedings though assuming we play the teams that are expected to win in later rounds.

[coasterville95]

Last night on channel 12 there was a suggestion that we might want to throw the Butler game to avoid the 8/9 seed.

I'm never in favor of throwing games. Just ask the badminton fans.

[drudy23]

Regardless of what happens, we will be no higher than a 7, and no lower than a 11. Analysis complete.

[LA Muskie]

Agreed. I don't think you see major seed movement because of tourney results.

[_LH]

I can see XU getting as high as a 6 seed with wins over Butler and Georgetown and a loss in the finals to Villanova.

I care more about match ups than seeding. I would love for XU to be paired with OSU in the first round in the 7/10 game with a shot to play Gonzaga.

[Xville]

i think if we win the whole thing, beating Butler, Georgetown and Nova in the process, I could see us jump to a 6...other than happening, I don't think one or two wins moves us all that much...it would be nice to avoid the 8/9 but if it happens, it happens.

[X-man]

I never want either the 8 or 9 seed. Historically (I think), we have our most damage in the tourney out of the 3/6/11 seed spot. And I would rather be an 11 than a 7 frankly. Avoiding the 1 or 2 seeds until the second weekend is what you want to have happen IMHO.

[XU '11]

I never want either the 8 or 9 seed. Historically (I think), we have our most damage in the tourney out of the 3/6/11 seed spot. And I would rather be an 11 than a 7 frankly. Avoiding the 1 or 2 seeds until the second weekend is what you want to have happen IMHO.

If I'm not mistaken, we have an Elite Eight (2004) and a Sweet 16 (2012) out of the 7/10 slot.

[Xavier]

Lose to Butler-10/11
Lose in Semi-8/9
Lose in Finals 7/8
Win 6/7 (six if we beat three ranked teams in doing so)

[D-West & PO-Z]

The absolute ceiling is probably a 6 but only if we beat Butler then Georgetown, then Nova.

I think the worst is an 11 seed but I really dont think we will be less than a 10 even if we lose to Butler.

[D-West & PO-Z]

If I'm not mistaken, we have an Elite Eight (2004) and a Sweet 16 (2012) out of the 7/10 slot.

That is correct.

[Xville]

I think in almost any other year, a 7/10 seed would be a pretty good spot for us to make a run, but outside of Gonzaga, I think the 2's are pretty formidable this year, KU is pretty good...and Wisconsin and Arizona are two teams that could win the whole thing in my opinion.

[ForTUitous]

You can absolutely make a huge jump in the conference tournament. Remember McNamara at Syracuse (last second runner against UC) when they went on a run to the Big East Championship. They were a bubble team. FSU jumped all the way up to a three seed after winning the ACC a couple years back I think it was Tu's senior year. Kemba's UCONN was the same way after winning the BE. If X adds three more top 25 wins it is definitely plausible to jump up to a six. But first, beat Butler.

[XUFan09]

The Committee doesn't put that much weight on conference tournament play. It's only 1-3 more games added to a 30-game season, plus the Committee mostly has the tournament seeded before the conference tournaments really get going. Is there room for movement still? Sure, but Xavier isn't going to suddenly be a 6 seed after a BE championship when they are probably a 9 seed right now, unless a number of teams above them lose early in their conference tournaments.

Bracket Matrix currently has Xavier as the best 9 seed. Here are the 6-8 seeds:

Georgetown
Butler
SMU
Providence
Iowa
San Diego State
St. John's
VCU (Committee is going to take into account how they have fared since the loss of Deonte Weber. Highly overseeded IMO)
Michigan State
Ohio State (Overseeded)
Dayton (Overseeded)
Oregon
NC State (Listed below Xavier, but they might truthfully be underseeded)

Let's assume VCU, OSU, and UD are actually seeded lower, but NC State is seeded higher, so Xavier is the third best 8 seed. To get a 6 seed, Xavier has to move up 7 spots, jumping some of these teams:

- Butler would necessarily be an early exit if Xavier went on a run, but it would be a perfectly acceptable loss. They probably wouldn't move much at all, so it's unlikely that Xavier passes them on the S-curve.
- Georgetown making it to the semifinals and losing to Xavier also wouldn't be bad. They would have to lose to DePaul or Creighton.
- Providence/St. John's - One of these two will make the semifinals, and the other one would have lost to a tournament team, so it would be the same situation as Butler. St. John's is close enough to Xavier though that a first-round loss likely would be enough.
- SMU losing to East Carolina or USF would drop them. If they lost to Memphis in the second round, that might be enough too.
- Iowa losing to Penn State or Nebraska would drop them.
- San Diego State probably has to make the finals to stay above Xavier.
- Michigan State would drop if they lost to OSU/Minnesota/Rutgers. Likely losing in the semifinals would be enough too.
- Oregon would drop if they lost to Oregon State or Colorado. They probably would drop if they fell below Utah too, simply because they couldn't match what Xavier did.

Basically, a lot of scenarios have to go Xavier's way. Jumping up to a 7 seed after a run is definitely likely; a whole bunch of teams would have to do really well to negate that. A 6 seed, though, is much harder to reach at this point in the year, and it wouldn't just be in Xavier's hands.

[Xville]

Well, we will probably have a chance to knock off two more ranked teams this week....Butler and Georgetown both check in at #22 and #23 respectively. So, that'd be nice. It would be really nice to at least get to the finals of the championship and play Nova.....maybe that gets us a #6 and we start in Louisville.

[XUFan09]

You can absolutely make a huge jump in the conference tournament. Remember McNamara at Syracuse (last second runner against UC) when they went on a run to the Big East Championship. They were a bubble team. FSU jumped all the way up to a three seed after winning the ACC a couple years back I think it was Tu's senior year. Kemba's UCONN was the same way after winning the BE. If X adds three more top 25 wins it is definitely plausible to jump up to a six. But first, beat Butler.

These narratives of "bubble to protected seed" simply aren't true. The media exaggerates the impact of the conference tournaments to boost the drama and fans buy it. Whenever this conversation comes up, I'm glad Warren Nolan has easily accessible records of his weekly tournament projections from past seasons. He has proven to be an average tournament predictor, so it's not like he'll be way off from what the Committee is thinking. Unfortunately, his page for the 2006 season isn't working right now, but he has the other seasons:

- Florida State entering the ACC tournament in 2012 he has projected as a 5 seed, and they finished with a 3 seed.
- Connecticut entering the Big East tournament in 2011 (five games in five days) he has projected as a 5 seed, and they finished with a 3 seed.

Teams don't make enormous jumps in the conference tournaments. On reviewing this info, I do have to bump up the odds some for Xavier nabbing a 6 seed if they win the BET, and I admit I was off there. Nevertheless, bubble teams do not jump up to a protected seed because of a run over one weekend.

[JTG]

Lose to Butler #11, beat Butler #10 Beat Gtown #9 Beat Nova #8.

[xubrew]

Last night on channel 12 there was a suggestion that we might want to throw the Butler game to avoid the 8/9 seed.

I'm never in favor of throwing games. Just ask the badminton fans.

A #8/9 seed gets a more winnable first round game than a #10, 11 or 12 seed does. They also get the #1 seed in a rather unique situation, because the #1 seed isn't exactly sure what team they'll be playing, and chances are the entire arena will be rooting against them. If we end up on the #8 or #9 line and are sent to Charlotte to play Duke, the place will be packed with ACC fans who all hate Duke. A #8 seed almost won the national title last year and a #9 seed was in the Final Four the year before that.


Agreed. I don't think you see major seed movement because of tourney results.

I don't think the committee values conference tournament games any more than the regular season, but I don't think they value them any less either. If you do something major in the conference tournament, and you haven't done anything major prior to that, your profile and seed will almost certainly improve. If a team like Indiana wins the Big Ten Tournament and beats Maryland, Michigan State and Wisconsin along the way, they're not going to be a #11 seed that's close to the bubble like they probably currently are.

[MHettel]

I can see XU getting as high as a 6 seed with wins over Butler and Georgetown and a loss in the finals to Villanova.

I care more about match ups than seeding. I would love for XU to be paired with OSU in the first round in the 7/10 game with a shot to play Gonzaga.

Me too. That means they are in Seattle....

[XU 87]

X was, at best, a bubble team entering the 2004 A-10 tourney. By winning the tourney and beating some good teams in doing so, they moved up to a 7 seed.

So if X were to win the BE tourney, I could see them moving up to a 6, since this would likely mean X won 2-3 top 25 RPI games on a neutral court. If X loses in the first round, I could see them dropping to a 10 or 11.

[xukeith]

X was, at best, a bubble team entering the 2004 A-10 tourney. By winning the tourney and beating some good teams in doing so, they moved up to a 7 seed.

So if X were to win the BE tourney, I could see them moving up to a 6, since this would likely mean X won 2-3 top 25 RPI games on a neutral court. If X loses in the first round, I could see them dropping to a 10 or 11.

Maybe as only 10 teams have as many top 50 wins or more than Xavier(23 with as many top 100 wins). X does have 4 sub 100 losses.

It will depend on the seed line above X and if Providence, Butler, SJU, and G'Town lose among others for X to pass them.
The entire seaason does the last 1-2 games make or crush.
I see if X wins out, a 7 seed, and if not anything from an 8-11 seed. It depends on the teams ranked with resumes 28-40 and how they do also.

[94GRAD]

0 wins= 10 seed
1 win= 8 seed
2 wins= 6 seed
3 wins= 5 seed

My predictions

[LA Muskie]

I don't think the committee values conference tournament games any more than the regular season, but I don't think they value them any less either. If you do something major in the conference tournament, and you haven't done anything major prior to that, your profile and seed will almost certainly improve. If a team like Indiana wins the Big Ten Tournament and beats Maryland, Michigan State and Wisconsin along the way, they're not going to be a #11 seed that's close to the bubble like they probably currently are.
I didn't mean to imply there's no movement. But I don't think it's a extreme as some on this board are positing. With one exception -- running the table to an unexpected championship. I'd expect to see us in the 8/9 range unless we win in the championship game. In which case I think we're at 7 at worst, and possibly a 6.

[xu82]

How much weight do they put in the conference tournaments? Aren't some of the finals still going on when they sit down to deliberate this stuff? It seems that way to me, at least... If it's really important, how can you decide before it's over? Maybe I'm way off here.

[JTG]

How much weight do they put in the conference tournaments? Aren't some of the finals still going on when they sit down to deliberate this stuff? It seems that way to me, at least... If it's really important, how can you decide before it's over? Maybe I'm way off here.

The BIG, being the collection of arrogant asshats that they are, play their championship game just prior to the Selection Show.

[xu82]

The BIG, being the collection of arrogant asshats that they are, play their championship game just prior to the Selection Show.

That sounds right. Let's just eliminate them all for not finishing their season on time. Sorry, missed the window fellas!

[Xavier_Musketeers]

If we win the BE tournament and everything works out as it should, we definitely deserve a 6 seed. We would beat the number 22 team, 23, and the number 4 team

[usfldan]

These narratives of "bubble to protected seed" simply aren't true. The media exaggerates the impact of the conference tournaments to boost the drama and fans buy it. Whenever this conversation comes up, I'm glad Warren Nolan has easily accessible records of his weekly tournament projections from past seasons. He has proven to be an average tournament predictor, so it's not like he'll be way off from what the Committee is thinking. Unfortunately, his page for the 2006 season isn't working right now, but he has the other seasons:

- Florida State entering the ACC tournament in 2012 he has projected as a 5 seed, and they finished with a 3 seed.
- Connecticut entering the Big East tournament in 2011 (five games in five days) he has projected as a 5 seed, and they finished with a 3 seed.

Teams don't make enormous jumps in the conference tournaments. On reviewing this info, I do have to bump up the odds some for Xavier nabbing a 6 seed if they win the BET, and I admit I was off there. Nevertheless, bubble teams do not jump up to a protected seed because of a run over one weekend.

I agree that the impact of the conference tournaments is overstated by the media, but at the same time I think there is more room for movement the further up the seeds you go. For example, no team is going to jump three spots from a 4 seed to a 1 seed this week, because the #1 and even #2 seeds resumes are so good. But it's entirely plausible for a team in a situation like Xavier's to jump three spots from 10 to 7 or 11 to 8, because teams with those resumes are flawed, and two or three high quality wins on a neutral court could make a significant difference in the end.

[X-band '01]

The BIG, being the collection of arrogant asshats that they are, play their championship game just prior to the Selection Show.

The American is doing the same this year. ESPN flip-flopped the American and the ACC so they could showcase the ACC in direct competition with the Big East.

Even bigger asshats in Bristol.

[LA Muskie]

I agree that the impact of the conference tournaments is overstated by the media, but at the same time I think there is more room for movement the further up the seeds you go. For example, no team is going to jump three spots from a 4 seed to a 1 seed this week, because the #1 and even #2 seeds resumes are so good. But it's entirely plausible for a team in a situation like Xavier's to jump three spots from 10 to 7 or 11 to 8, because teams with those resumes are flawed, and two or three high quality wins on a neutral court could make a significant difference in the end.
I hadn't really thought of it that way before, but I think that's a very good way of looking at it.

[LA Muskie]

The American is doing the same this year. ESPN flip-flopped the American and the ACC so they could showcase the ACC in direct competition with the Big East.

Even bigger asshats in Bristol.

I'm pretty sure that growing up the Big East Championship was played on Sunday as well.

[ForTUitous]

These narratives of "bubble to protected seed" simply aren't true. The media exaggerates the impact of the conference tournaments to boost the drama and fans buy it. Whenever this conversation comes up, I'm glad Warren Nolan has easily accessible records of his weekly tournament projections from past seasons. He has proven to be an average tournament predictor, so it's not like he'll be way off from what the Committee is thinking. Unfortunately, his page for the 2006 season isn't working right now, but he has the other seasons:

- Florida State entering the ACC tournament in 2012 he has projected as a 5 seed, and they finished with a 3 seed.
- Connecticut entering the Big East tournament in 2011 (five games in five days) he has projected as a 5 seed, and they finished with a 3 seed.

Teams don't make enormous jumps in the conference tournaments. On reviewing this info, I do have to bump up the odds some for Xavier nabbing a 6 seed if they win the BET, and I admit I was off there. Nevertheless, bubble teams do not jump up to a protected seed because of a run over one weekend.

Okay here's a better scenario. UC's run in the BE tournament a couple years back. They were projected in the 8-9 range made the finals ended up as a six. Other than the Syracuse situation I was just showing instances where teams made significant jumps in the tournament. Did you look up UCONN? I don't think they were that high before the tournament but I could be wrong and I'm to lazy to look it up.

[XUFan09]

Okay here's a better scenario. UC's run in the BE tournament a couple years back. They were projected in the 8-9 range made the finals ended up as a six. Other than the Syracuse situation I was just showing instances where teams made significant jumps in the tournament. Did you look up UCONN? I don't think they were that high before the tournament but I could be wrong and I'm to lazy to look it up.

I mentioned UConn in the very post you replied to. They were projected as a 5 seed and after the run they garnered a 3 seed.

I'm not saying notable movement can't be achieved in the conference tournament. It's just not the situation of a bubble team suddenly getting a 3-5 seed because they won 3 to 5 games. You have to remember that the conference tournament games only equal around 10% of a tournament resume. Now, moving up a couple seeds through a trio of top 25 wins? Sure, definitely possible.

[The Coz]

I think i'd rather win a Big East tourney in the Garden than one NCAA tourney game. Then i could ask UC fans how many Big East titles they won.

[Xavier]

Well, I admit I would be fine with a Big East tournament championship meaning losing first round- it is not so I can ask UC fans how many Big East titles they won. Very "Little Brother" IMO.

[Backyard Champ]

I mentioned UConn in the very post you replied to. They were projected as a 5 seed and after the run they garnered a 3 seed.

I'm not saying notable movement can't be achieved in the conference tournament. It's just not the situation of a bubble team suddenly getting a 3-5 seed because they won 3 to 5 games. You have to remember that the conference tournament games only equal around 10% of a tournament resume. Now, moving up a couple seeds through a trio of top 25 wins? Sure, definitely possible.

I think that depending on where a team is at near the end of the season could determine how much their conference tournament results effect their seed line.

In the examples you listed, if the same teams where projected as a 7 seed before the tournament, I could see them jumping to the same seed they got. It would take a lot for a team with an average resume to jump into the top 2 seed line. The fact that they were projected 5 seeds before the tournament, IMO means no matter what they weren't cracking the top 2 seeds.
I think Xavier's situation is very different than those teams. Right now we are in a mix with a ton of average rsumes, adding 3 top 25 wins and a conference championship in the 2nd ranked conference would have a much greater impact for someone projected as a 10 seed than it would for so,done projected as a 5. The 5 seed teams are already near the top of the average resumes, but not good enough to crack the top 8 teams.

[XUFan09]

I think that depending on where a team is at near the end of the season could determine how much their conference tournament results effect their seed line.

In the examples you listed, if the same teams where projected as a 7 seed before the tournament, I could see them jumping to the same seed they got. It would take a lot for a team with an average resume to jump into the top 2 seed line. The fact that they were projected 5 seeds before the tournament, IMO means no matter what they weren't cracking the top 2 seeds.
I think Xavier's situation is very different than those teams. Right now we are in a mix with a ton of average rsumes, adding 3 top 25 wins and a conference championship in the 2nd ranked conference would have a much greater impact for someone projected as a 10 seed than it would for so,done projected as a 5. The 5 seed teams are already near the top of the average resumes, but not good enough to crack the top 8 teams.

The way I see it is that besides passing up all the 7 seeds, we need to end up with a better resume than at least one of the 6 seeds. Things have shifted a bit in Bracket Matrix and the current 6 seeds are:

Arkansas
Butler
SMU
Providence

Each of those teams have looked to be on another level from Xavier, resume-wise, so it would be hard to bump one of them out. With a tournament championship, though, I could definitely see Xavier rising to this level, as they would just have to pass one out of these four (or whichever are the true 6 seeds at the moment).

[Xville]

Usuallly I think Bilas is an asshat, but I think this actually makes a lot of sense. His ranking of teams i think are a little suspect, but i like the whole idea.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/12454021/how-make-ncaa-tournament-even-better-college-basketball

[XU 87]

Usuallly I think Bilas is an asshat, but I think this actually makes a lot of sense. His ranking of teams i think are a little suspect, but i like the whole idea.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/12454021/how-make-ncaa-tournament-even-better-college-basketball

The problem with his proposal is that the post season tournament has no relevance other than who wins it. Why shouldn't those games count for seeding etc. just like the regular season games?

[Xville]

The problem with his proposal is that the post season tournament has no relevance other than who wins it. Why shouldn't those games count for seeding etc. just like the regular season games?

Well, I like him, believe that conference tournaments are a little unfair to the little to middle conference schools. I agree with him that it is unfair for a Miami to pad their resume based on a couple of games against teams whose motivations may be eschew, while the smaller conference teams like a murray state have little chance. Not saying that Murray State deserved to be in before their conference tourney started, but you know what I mean.

I can't say it any better than what he said here: Let's let Championship Week be about the automatic bid, not about big shots adding quality wins to a résumé when the "little guy" has no chance to do the same.


I like his thinking but it is by no means perfect.

[waggy]

Well they shouldn't have expanded beyond 64. It didn't break it, but it didn't make it better. And the bubble is only more watered-down than before. I can promise you Bilas doesn't give two shits about the "little guy". He cares about ratings, and a being a blowhard, or being perceived as relevent. It's easy to make up feel good bullshit fighting for the little guy.

[waggy]

Come to think of it, setting the field before the tourney's actually hurts the "little guy". Ever heard of a bid stealer?

Bilasshat.

[Xville]

Come to think of it, setting the field before the tourney's actually hurts the "little guy". Ever heard of a bid stealer?

Bilasshat.

no it doesn't...automatic bid would still exist.

[waggy]

no it doesn't...automatic bid would still exist.

I'm talking about mid-majors like Mountain West, MVC, A10, etc. In Bilasshat's world those are little guys, whether he claims them to be in his article or not.

[Xville]

I'm talking about mid-majors like Mountain West, MVC, A10, etc. In Bilasshat's world those are little guys, whether he claims them to be in his article or not.

I'm still not following what you are trying to say?

[waggy]

I'm still not following what you are trying to say?

If the field is set before the tourney's it eliminates the possibility that those mid majors can have a team that wasn't going to get an at-large bid win their tourney. For example the MVC has 3 at larges right now, but if a 4th wins the tourney, they just took a bid from the ACC or SEC or... This actually happens. And bids are worth a lot of money. A lot. I'm also very cynical.

[Xville]

If the field is set before the tourney's it eliminates the possibility that those mid majors can have a team that wasn't going to get a bid win their tourney. For example the MVC has 3 at larges right now, but if a 4th wins the tourney, they just took a bid from the ACC or SEC or... This actually happens. And bids are worth a lot of money. A lot. I'm also very cynical.

In his scenario, there are still bid stealers....in all the conference tournaments. What he is suggesting (which I do agree with and can't believe I am agreeing with Bilas on anything) is that the conference tournaments need to stop being about the Miami Floridas of the world being able to pad their resume against non-motivated teams while a Illinois State for example, can't unless they win their whole tourney.

[LA Muskie]

Come to think of it, setting the field before the tourney's actually hurts the "little guy". Ever heard of a bid stealer?

Bilasshat.

Waggy did you actually read the article? No effect on the bid stealer. If anything it could protect mid majors at risk of having their bid stolen.

[waggy]

In his scenario, there are still bid stealers....in all the conference tournaments. What he is suggesting (which I do agree with and can't believe I am agreeing with Bilas on anything) is that the conference tournaments need to stop being about the Miami Floridas of the world being able to pad their resume against non-motivated teams while a Illinois State for example, can't unless they win their whole tourney.

I see. Sorry I quit reading at idea #1.

One thing I hate about the idea of the curve being made public a week in advance is I'm envisioning all the disection and bitching that will go on.

[waggy]

Well one good thing came out of this.

Bilasshat.

[LA Muskie]

I actually really like the idea. But I'd keep the initial 68 secret to avoid the risk of manipulation. And I wish it didn't basically render high major tourneys meaningless (except for the potential bid stealers).

[usfldan]

If anything this gives several teams even less motivation. In our current system, we all think Xavier is probably in, could move up with some wins, and if they lay an egg, there will be some sleepless nights on this board. In the Bilas scenario, the Big East Tournament is meaningless for Xavier. If they win all three games by 30, they are still #29 (or the first 8 seed). If they lose to Butler by 30, they are still the first 8 seed. (Similar to his Kentucky example, in which it can lose to Auburn while Wisconsin wins the Big Ten tournament, but Kentucky still gets the No. 1 seed because it had already been announced). If some conference really wanted, it could just exempt any teams seeded 35 or so and below so it could sneak one more team into the tournament.
I had never heard this argument before that it is unfair that major conference teams can get bigger wins in their conference tournaments. What makes that any different than the regular season?

[OTRMUSKIE]

X should have a RPI of 25 and a SOS of 5 no matter the outcome of tonight's Nova game. With 11 top 100 wins and 6 wins against ranked teams this team IMHO is a 6 seed. If they win tonight I think they slide in as a 4. RPI of 20 if they win and 7 wins against ranked teams.

[Xavier]

I don't see 4 at all, too many sub 100 losses. I think 5 IF a lot falls into place. More likely a 6/7. But with a loss I think they could still get a 7

[THRILLHOUSE]

I don't see 4 at all, too many sub 100 losses. I think 5 IF a lot falls into place. More likely a 6/7. But with a loss I think they could still get a 7

Yeah, 4 isn't going to happen. 5 would be a slight possibility, gonna need some help in other tourneys, but I'll predict 6 with a win tonight, 7 with a loss.

[markchal]

I'd love to believe 7 with a loss but I think it's more likely we get one the higher 8-seeds. I think even a five is very unlikely because the committee doesn't give much consideration to the conf tournament.

[xukeith]

Lose to Butler-10/11
Lose in Semi-8/9
Lose in Finals 7/8
Win 6/7 (six if we beat three ranked teams in doing so)

As of this morning, http://bracketmatrix.com/

has all projected brackets as X being the best 8. Many say 7. 1 says 5.
Win and probably lock up a 7, maybe a 6.

[Retire33]

Just updated again with X now the bottom #7. This is fluid and should see X continue to rise as the brackets are updated and the matrix reflects that.

[xukeith]

NCAA committee does not consider rankings AP or and others.
They do use RPI.
X will have (if win) 9 top 50 rpi wins and 4 sub 100 losses.
7 if win, 8 if lose.

[crolfes12]

Lunardi has X as a 7 today

http://espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology

[xukeith]

Just updated again with X now the bottom #7. This is fluid and should see X continue to rise as the brackets are updated and the matrix reflects that.

Agree. But I wonder with the committee already locking in their 68 yesterday, how much fluidity could seeding be because of these Conference tourneys. Hoping for a 7! A 6 would be a miracle. Would not be shocked with an 8. It is all guessing.

[BandAid]

Looking at Lunardi's bracket. Here is the list of the top 8 seeds (which those 8 seem pretty universal) in the order I would NOT want to play them:

1. Wisconsin
2. Duke
3. Villanova
4. Kentucky
5. Virginia
6. Gonzaga
7. Arizona
8. Kansas

I have limited knowledge of some of these teams, but I tried to put teams with good big men who can spread the floor near the top. Kaminsky would chew us up. Okafor would be a beast. Luckily we get to play the #3 dreaded team tonight.

[waggy]

I only watched Kansas once this year, against Georgetown, and thought they were amazing. Virginia seems to be struggling the most right now.

[paulxu]

There are only 9 teams in the country who have as many wins vs the top 50 (12) as Xavier does.

So...I've decided we should be a 3 seed.

[xu82]

There are only 9 teams in the country who have as many wins vs the top 50 (12) as Xavier does.

So...I've decided we should be a 3 seed.
Well, it's been decided then!

[usfldan]

I was curious how this year's team stacked up to previous teams that got good seeds. https://rpiarchive.ncaa.org has the Nitty Grity reports on Selection Sunday going back to 2008:


Overall Overall Overall Non-Con Non-Con Conf. ROAD 1-50 51-100 101-200 TOP 100 Final
Year Seed W-L RPI SOS RPI W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L Result
2015 ?? 20-12 30 13 27 10-3 10-9 5-7 7-6 3-2 8-4 10-8
2014 12 20-12 47 33 61 9-3 11-9 4-6 4-6 5-3 9-3 9-9 Rd of 68
2013 - 17-14 87 64 132 7-6 10-8 4-7 5-3 0-7 7-3 5-10 No Postseason
2012 10 21-12 41 26 67 9-5 12-7 5-7 4-6 4-5 7-0 8-11 Sweet 16
2011 6 24-7 22 56 36 9-5 15-2 8-4 4-3 2-2 14-1 6-5 Rd of 64
2010 6 24-8 19 44 40 9-5 15-3 7-5 3-7 7-1 9-0 10-8 Sweet 16
2009 4 25-7 17 x 2 12-2 13-5 7-4 5-4 5-1 9-1 10-5 Sweet 16
2008 3 27-6 9 x 11 12-3 15-3 7-4 9-4 3-2 11-0 12-6 Elite 8



We do come close to the 2010 & 2011 teams that got 6 seeds, but those both had better RPIs and far less bad losses (1 in the two years combined to 4 this year). Without those four bad losses, this team might be looking at a top 4 seed.

This is the latest report, which does not include last night's win:
https://rpiarchive.ncaa.org/Stats%20Library/March%2013,%202015%20-%202014-15%20MBB.pdf

[paulxu]

OK, my earlier post sucked because I didn't read a certain table right.

Let me re-do that post.
There are only 11 teams in the country with at least 8 top 50 wins. Xavier is one of the 11.

My conclusion remains the same. We should be 3 seed.

[OTRMUSKIE]

Well you guys are all wrong because I say so. No way X gets an 8. I have destroyed too many brain cells and spent too much money watching these last two games to have my favorite team get a 8 seed. X is getting a 7/6 and that's that. If they win they are getting a 5. PLEASE!

[GetUp5]

Looking at Lunardi's bracket. Here is the list of the top 8 seeds (which those 8 seem pretty universal) in the order I would NOT want to play them:

1. Wisconsin
2. Duke
3. Villanova
4. Kentucky
5. Virginia
6. Gonzaga
7. Arizona
8. Kansas

I have limited knowledge of some of these teams, but I tried to put teams with good big men who can spread the floor near the top. Kaminsky would chew us up. Okafor would be a beast. Luckily we get to play the #3 dreaded team tonight.

No offense, but you clearly have limited knowledge of these teams if Kentucky is #4 on the Do Not Play List. You're right about Wisky though.. They'd annihilate us.

1. Kentucky (by a wide margin)
2. Wisky
3. Duke
4. Nova
5. Zags
6. Virginia
7. Zona
8. Kansas

[Fireball]

I think our seed ceiling is a 5. If we win tonight and get some help, we could get a 5.

If we lose, I think we best we can do is a 6, but I think we end up as a 7 if we lose. I know we have some bad losses, but I think we'll be rewarded for the tough schedule and our the amount of quality wins that we have.

[bjf123]

Looked at cbssports.com earlier today. They had us an 8 playing Dayton in Louisville with the winner playing UK.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[XUOWNSUC]

I think we are most likely a 6 or a 7 with a Xavier win tonight and 7 or an 8 if Xavier loses.

My prediction: #7 seed with a chance to play #2 seed Maryland (& Dez Wells).

[BMoreX]

I think we are most likely a 6 or a 7 with a Xavier win tonight and 7 or an 8 if Xavier loses.

My prediction: #7 seed with a chance to play #2 seed Maryland (& Dez Wells).

That would be either be fantastic or a nightmare for me.

Though I don't think MD will get a 2.

[XUOWNSUC]

That would be either be fantastic or a nightmare for me.

Though I don't think MD will get a 2.

Yeah, that isn't happening now with a Maryland loss. Unless they are a 3 and Xavier gets a 6.

[XUFan09]

Prediction: Maryland is one of those teams that will be seeded well below their current ranking and pundits will bitch about it.

[_LH]

I can see XU getting as high as a 6 seed with wins over Butler and Georgetown and a loss in the finals to Villanova.

I care more about match ups than seeding. I would love for XU to be paired with OSU in the first round in the 7/10 game with a shot to play Gonzaga.

Nailed it.

I don't hate XU's draw but I still would have liked to have played OSU first and then Gonzaga.

[OTRMUSKIE]

Nailed it.

I don't hate XU's draw but I still would have liked to have played OSU first and then Gonzaga.

A lot of us nailed it but we didn't toot our horns. Fills good to be right though doesn't it? :lmao:

[XU 87]

A lot of us nailed it but we didn't toot our horns. Fills good to be right though doesn't it? :lmao:

Boy, he really went out on the limb with that 6th seed possibility (he did not "predict" a 6 seed) since most of us, including me thought that 7 was the likely seed and 6 was an outside possibility.

[94GRAD]

0 wins= 10 seed
1 win= 8 seed
2 wins= 6 seed
3 wins= 5 seed

My predictions

Toot,Toot

[_LH]

A lot of us nailed it but we didn't toot our horns. Fills good to be right though doesn't it? :lmao:

Just brining it full circle.

[LadyMuskie]

Nailed it.

I don't hate XU's draw but I still would have liked to have played OSU first and then Gonzaga.

I think nailing it would have looked more like "X will be a 6 seed in the West playing the winner of the BYU/Ole Miss play-in game on Thursday."

[_LH]

I think nailing it would have looked more like "X will be a 6 seed in the West playing the winner of the BYU/Ole Miss play-in game on Thursday."

No, I nailed it.

[LadyMuskie]

No, I nailed it.

I don't think the phrase "nailed it" means what you think it means.

[_LH]

I don't think the phrase "nailed it" means what you think it means.

It means I nailed it, which I did.

[LadyMuskie]

I means I nailed it, which I did.

You can't use the word you're trying to define in the definition of that word. So, I'll maintain that you don't really know what the phrase "nailed it" means.

[xu82]

You can't use the word you're trying to define in the definition of that word. So, I'll maintain that you don't really know what the phrase "nailed it" means.

Give up, he's sure he nailed the definition.

[_LH]

You can't use the word you're trying to define in the definition of that word. So, I'll maintain that you don't really know what the phrase "nailed it" means.

I do and I did.

[LadyMuskie]

Give up, he's sure he nailed the definition.

Never! Did we give up when the Nazis bombed Pearl Harbor?


I do and I did.

Nope.

[waggy]

Comedy gold.

[_LH]

Nope.

Yup.

[XU 87]

Yup.

This has been covered.

[_LH]

This has been covered.

If you say so. :rolleyes:

[XU 87]

If you say so. :rolleyes:

You nailed it this time!

[X-Fan]

No, I nailed it.


I don't think the phrase "nailed it" means what you think it means.


It means I nailed it, which I did.


You can't use the word you're trying to define in the definition of that word. So, I'll maintain that you don't really know what the phrase "nailed it" means.


Give up, he's sure he nailed the definition.


I do and I did.

1671

[_LH]

You nailed it this time!

Every time.

[OTRMUSKIE]

LH you did nail it!

[X-band '01]

Anybody want to coax JimmyTwoTimes37 out of his hiatus?